"More than 2,000 illegal alien juveniles have been apprehended and taken
into federal custody in each of the last several months, according to
DHS statistics....Most of those apprehended are male
teenagers, with the largest number from Guatemala....

About90 percent
of the recent Central American arrivals who had hearings scheduled last
summer and fall failed to appear at their immigration hearings and have
melted into the larger illegal alien population....According to the DHS statistics, which have not been released to the
public, but were obtained by the Center, about 99 percent of all the
illegal alien minors taken into ICE custody since the beginning of the
fiscal year were apprehended by the Border Patrol.

As the Associated Press
notes, repeal measure HB 2190 earlier passed the Arizona state House
and the Senate Education committee, but the full Senate rejected the
bill as it did a similar proposal last month and yet another last year.

The legislation, which was introduced in the Arizona House by Rep.
Mark Finchem (R), would have abolished Common Core, created a new
committee to evaluate alternative standards, and banned the state Board
of Education from adopting new standards without the approval of the
legislature.The four Republicans who voted against the repeal of the standards
are state Sens. Adam Driggs, Bob Worsley, Steve Pierce and Jeff Dial. AP
reports that, despite urging from fellow Republicans to reconsider
their vote, these members made no comment as they voted to reject the
measure.Breitbart News reported
Monday that the Senate’s rejection of the bill is not surprising since
Arizona’s Republican Gov. Doug Ducey was not supportive of it, going as
far as to call it “unnecessary” since it is his hope the Common Core
standards can be “fixed” in his state.Ducey ran last year for governor as a candidate opposed to the
nationalized education initiative. Just five months later, however, he
is telling a different story.

“I don’t think that legislation is necessary because we’re going to
fix what’s wrong with these standards,” the governor said, referring to
the Common Core as a “distraction.”

Ward, who is considering a primary run against U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), has staunchly opposed the Common Core standards.

“I believe that the Common Core standards are an egregious example of
federal overreach into a clearly state issue – education,” she said. “I
have been fighting against the federalization of our education system
since I got to the legislature.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its affiliates in the states, in
fact, have strongly lobbied in favor of the Common Core standards as
part of a workforce development scheme to ensure government will provide
big business with a steady stream of inexpensive labor. The data
collection associated with the Common Core testing will be used to
channel students into certain jobs and industries, creating a form
of planned economy. Many establishment Republicans have signed onto
Common Core in the hope of Chamber contributions to their political
campaigns.

As Breitbart News’ Dan Riehl reported
Monday, strong resistance by grassroots conservatives has led the
Chamber to boost its political strategy to “include a greater emphasis
on recruiting the right sort of business-friendly GOP candidates and
intervening in primaries as it attempts to sculpt a compliant Congress
that mirrors its priorities.”

“Despite Gov. Ducey also running against Common Core, he has
unfortunately reversed that position, interfering with the removal of
two pro-Common Core staff, publicly stating that now is not the time to
remove Common Core, and instead asking the Board of Education to review
the standards,” she said in a statement to Breitbart News.

With news of the defeat of the Common Core repeal measure, Douglas
told Breitbart News, “I am disappointed. SB 2190 is an effort that I
fully support because it puts additional pressure on the Board of
Education to listen to the will of the people.”

“As the public weighs in around the state, I still believe it will
create sufficient momentum for the Board to have to improve the
standards,” she added." via Free Republic. Image above from AP

"Those protesting against the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the proposed new
trade treaty between the European Union and the United States, are part
of a growing international opposition to pacts that allow multinational
companies to sue governments whose policies damage their interests.

Investor-state
dispute settlements were devised by industrialised nations in the 1960s
as a way to protect their companies' overseas investments against
threats such as nationalisation by the country they invested in.Supporters
of ISDS say it offers a fair and impartial forum for the settlement of
disputes between investors and states and, if appropriate, for deciding
the amount of compensation an investor should get.They claim that
ISDS encourages companies to invest in a country they might otherwise
shun through fear that, in a dispute with that nation, they would be
unable to get a fair hearing in its domestic courts.

How does ISDS work?

For an
investment to be covered by ISDS, both the country where it is located
and the investor's home nation must have agreed to its use. This is
normally done through countries signing investment treaties with ISDS
provisions.There are now about 3,200 investment treaties globally. Most of these empower investors to launch ISDS actions.So
far, approximately 600 actions have been launched - though not all are
reported. The number of cases has risen significantly in recent years.

What is the TTIP?

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP) is primarily a deal to cut tariffs and regulatory
barriers to trade between the US and EU countries.

The British government claims TTIP
could add £10bn to the UK economy, £80bn to the US and £100bn to the EU
every year through the freeing-up of trade.

The Conservatives, Labour and the
Liberal Democrats broadly support the TTIP, though Labour has called for
the NHS to be exempted from the ISDS measures.

Much of the opposition to the TTIP is focused on ISDS, food standards and financial regulation.

Negotiators have held eight rounds of
talks on the TTIP, with a provisional deadline of December this year by
EU leaders to agree a draft text.

Each case is judged by a panel of three arbitrators, selected by the
government and the investor involved in the case from a small pool of
specialist lawyers. The tribunals can meet anywhere convenient to the
parties, with decisions based on the wording of treaties rather than
national laws.Cases can last for years and are costly. In
addition to paying arbitrators' fees, each side has to employ a team of
lawyers to argue its case.Even when governments win, as they have
in around 40% of the known cases, they often have to pay their own
costs - averaging around $4.5m per case.When investors win,
arbitrators can award damages. There is no appeal against the level of
damages, which can amount to hundreds of millions and, in some cases,
billions of dollars.

Why do opponents of ISDS claim it is biased in foreign investors' favour?

Opponents
say it is easier for foreign investors to attack a government's policy
using ISDS than it would be through even the most trusted,
well-established national court systems.First, they claim ISDS gives foreign investors an additional way to oppose government policies. One instance often cited occurred after Australia passed a law in 2011 requiring cigarettes to be sold only in plain packs.Philip Morris and a group of other tobacco multinationals challenged
this legislation in Australia's domestic courts and were roundly
defeated. In Australian law, that was the end of the matter. But Philip
Morris was able to launch another action - still continuing - under an
ISDS treaty.Opponents also claim that ISDS favours foreign investors over domestic ones.In
Germany, after the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, the
government announced it would phase out nuclear power altogether.Germany
was sued using ISDS by the Swedish state-owned power company Vattenfall
for loss of profits from two nuclear power stations that the firm
co-owns with the giant German energy company E.ON.

Being Swedish,
Vattenfall counts as a foreign investor in Germany and so could use ISDS
to claim damages. As a German enterprise, E.ON could not, despite both
companies being large European power companies, facing the same
potential losses on the same power stations as a result of the same
government policy.E.ON is able to claim damages under property
rights set out in the German constitution. But because those property
rights are balanced by considerations of the general public good, any
compensation from the Constitutional Court is likely to be significantly
lower than an ISDS tribunal would award.

Why do opponents claim ISDS is a threat to democracy?

Opponents
say ISDS can deter governments from enacting policies, to benefit the
environment or to improve the health or safety of their populations, for
example, for fear that those policies might trigger an ISDS action from
a foreign investor.While wealthier countries can comfortably afford to defend such actions, cost can be a major issue for poorer nations.For
five years El Salvador, one of the poorest countries in Central
America, has been fighting an ISDS action launched by a Canadian
gold-mining company after the nation declared a moratorium on mining
licences. This followed widespread public concern of a potential threat
to drinking water quality from mining operations.The gold-mining
company is claiming $250m in damages - representing the profit it says
it would have made had it been given a licence to mine.That $250m would represent almost 5% of El Salvador's total government budget.The
gold-miner's claim may still fail - a decision is expected imminently -
but opponents of ISDS argue that the fear of such awards makes many
poorer countries hesitate before implementing policies that might
benefit their populations.In the light of such cases, some
countries, particularly in Latin America, are now considering
terminating their treaties. Others, including South Africa, have already
started doing so.These countries are reassured by Brazil, which -
though it has never signed an ISDS treaty - can still point to large
inflows of foreign investment.

If ISDS has been around for decades, why is it now suddenly a big issue?

For
decades, while ISDS treaties were being signed, few claims were
launched. Academic research suggests that most countries then regarded
the treaties as little more than tokens of diplomatic goodwill, safely
ignored.In the late 1990s, lawyers started waking up to the
potential of ISDS and began advising investors to launch actions. The
number of cases increased sharply.The current protests have been
fuelled byproposals to include ISDS provision in two trade treaties:
the TTIP and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Have the protests made any difference?

They seem to have done. In
January, the EU Commission revealed that of the 150,000 responses to
its public consultation on the proposed EU-US treaty, 97% were against
it.In negotiations with the US over the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership, Cecilia Malmstrom, the EU Trade Commissioner, is
seeking to limit the scope of the ISDS provisions. She proposed giving
governments a "right to regulate" free from ISDS attack, and exempting
issues of general public benefit such as health and the environment.If
she succeeds, she says she hopes the new treaty would become a new
"gold standard" for ISDS, eventually replacing provisions in the
thousands of existing treaties. This network, she says, is "not fit for
purpose in the 21st Century".Some commentators believe the new EU demands could mean negotiations fail and that no new treaty is signed.

Gravis
Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 850
registered voters in Nevada regarding potential matchups. The voter list
sample includes 443 Republican Primary participants, 319 Democratic
Primary participants, and the remainder are Independents/Other. The poll
has a margin of error of ± 3% [5% for Republican Primary/6% for
Democratic Primary]. The total may not round to 100% because of
rounding. The polls are weighted separately for each population in the
question presented."...

Ed. note: Gravis showed two sets of GOP candidates who were tied. It alphabetized the second set (Christie-Huckabee) but not the first, ie Cruz-Walker. I took the liberty of alphabetizing the Cruz-Walker tie as Free Republic did.

By 1988, Connecticut's conservative icon William F.
Buckley, Jr. had had enough of RINO Senator Lowell Weicker. So Buckleyendorsed and helped elect Democrat Joseph Leiberman. Currently, no junior Democrats can do as much damage to conservatism as Boehner."...

AAN is housed in the same office
as the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC associated with
Boehner, and the two organizations share senior aides, including Brian
O. Walsh, the president of both organizations, and Dan Conston, the
spokesman for both.Boehner spoke at a fundraiser for CLN earlier this summer and also
headlined the organization’s inaugural event. The group’s website has
posted links to numerous news stories that refer to the group as
“Boehner’s” super PAC.

So really, these ads against his fellow conservatives could
not be more Boehner-endorsed unless he appeared at the end saying, “I’m
John Boehner, and I approved this message because I’m trying real hard
not to look like an idiot by allowing our national security to be put at
risk by my own damned party.”

"Abstract""Marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.) cultivation has proliferated in
northwestern California since at least the mid-1990s. The environmental
impacts associated with marijuana cultivation appear substantial, yet
have been difficult to quantify, in part because cultivation is
clandestine and often occurs on private property. To evaluate the
impacts of water diversions at a watershed scale, we interpreted
high-resolution aerial imagery to estimate the number of marijuana
plants being cultivated in four watersheds in northwestern California,
USA. Low-altitude aircraft flights and search warrants executed with law
enforcement at cultivation sites in the region helped to validate
assumptions used in aerial imagery interpretation. We estimated the
water demand of marijuana irrigation and the potential effects water
diversions could have on stream flow in the study watersheds. Our
results indicate that water demand for marijuana cultivation has the
potential to divert substantial portions of streamflow in the study
watersheds, with an estimated flow reduction of up to 23% of the annual
seven-day low flow in the least impacted of the study watersheds.
Estimates from the other study watersheds indicate that water demand for
marijuana cultivation exceeds streamflow during the low-flow period. In
the most impacted study watersheds, diminished streamflow is likely to
have lethal or sub-lethal effects on state-and federally-listed salmon
and steelhead trout and to cause further decline of sensitive amphibian
species."

“It’s like a torture convention that doesn’t forbid torture,” said
Karen Orenstein, a campaigner for Friends of the Earth US who was at the
meeting. “Honestly it should be a no-brainer at this point.”The fund was set up as part of the ongoing UN climate
negotiations to help developing countriesfinance clean energy and
measures to help adapt to climate change.

Its website states:
“The fund will promote the paradigm shift towards low-emission and
climate-resilient development pathways by providing support to
developing countries to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”

It has struggled for support, however, with industrialised countries
paying only about 1% of the $10.2bn (£6.9bn) committed at the UN climate
negotiations in Lima last December. The deadline for contributions is
30 April.

With no clear rules on climate finance, much of the funds can be channelled to dirty energy, campaigners say.

Campaigners say the lack of clear rules makes a mockery of the fund.
“Many people think it’s crazy that they are not going to have a no-go
zone,” (Karen) Orenstein said. “The fact that the GCF won’t say it is
problematic both for the integrity of the fund, and also reputational
risk.”

The board agreed to set a minimum benchmark for the greenhouse gas
emissions cuts that projects must achieve, but not until 2016.
Meanwhile, they will apply an “assessment scale” to the first projects,
which are set to be approved in October."

Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls conceded that the mainstream right won the voting. "It is incontestable," Valls said, bemoaning divisions within the left that he said proved costly.

The Socialists even lost its hold on the council in Correze, President
Francois Hollande's home away from home in the French heartland, taken
back by the right, the Interior Ministry said.

Valls' political fief, the Essonne, south of Paris, appeared headed for a victory by the rival right.

Marine Le Pen, leader of the anti-immigration National Front, may be in
for a bitter surprise, apparently failing to win a single council, even
the southern Vaucluse where her niece Marion Marechal-Le Pen, one of
three party lawmakers, is a major figure. The National Front chief was
triumphant after last week's first round when her party took 25 percent
of the vote, second behind the mainstream right. Still, her party can
claim as many as 90 councilors around France.

The Interior Ministry, counting results of 66 of 98 regions, said
Sarkozy's UMP and its allies won 46 percent of the vote, compared to 34
percent for the left and 20 percent for the National Front. Sarkozy, in a victory statement, said the right would prepare a changing
of the guard "to redress the country, stop the decline that the most
archaic socialism in Europe has plunged it into."

Estimates suggested the anti-immigration National Front could win up to
two councils with scores that Valls said were "clearly in progression."

The political stakes were high despite the local vote as Hollande's left
tried to save itself after failing to boost the lagging French economy
or increase jobs and Sarkozy's right eyed a comeback, and each side
tried to fend off the anti-immigration National Front which comes off a
series of electoral victories.

The elections were a "critical step for the patriot movement on the road
to power," National Front leader Marine Le Pen said. "The goal is near,
reaching power and applying our ideas to redress France."

Valls had called on voters to choose anyone running, even a rival
conservative, to block a National Front candidate, and he suggested the
large victory by the right was partially because of his calls for
solidarity against the far right. Sarkozy refused to reciprocate, telling supporters to simply abstain if a candidate from his UMP party wasn't running.

Valls said the French economy was showing signs of improvement, and vowed to march onward with his program. "Jobs. Jobs. Jobs," Valls said, announcing plans for a new measure in the coming days addressing public and private investment.

Turnout was lower three hours before polls closed, measured at 41.94
percent compared to 42.98 percent in the first round, the Interior
Ministry said.

Voters cast ballots to choose 4,108 local council members across the
country for the 98 councils. Candidates appear on ballots in pairs — one
man, one woman — to ensure that 50 percent of council members are
women.

The
Trans-Pacific Partnership — a cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s remaining
economic agenda — would grant broad powers to multinational companies
operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord,
still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors
would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions
and court rulings —federal, state or local — before tribunals organized
under the World Bank or the United Nations.

Members
of Congress have beenreviewing the secret document in secure reading
rooms, but this is the first disclosure to the public since an early
version leaked in 2012..

“This
is really troubling,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the
Senate’s No. 3 Democrat. “It seems to indicate that savvy, deep-pocketed
foreign conglomerates could challenge a broad range of laws we pass at
every level of government, such as made-in-America laws or anti-tobacco
laws. I think people on both sides of the aisle will have trouble with
this.”....

Such
“Investor-State Dispute Settlement” accords exist already in more than
3,000 trade agreements across the globe. The United States is party to
51, including the North American Free Trade Agreement. Administration
officials say they level the playing field for American companies doing
business abroad, protect property from government seizure and ensure
access to international justice.

But
the limited use of trade tribunals, critics argue, is because companies
in those countries do not have the size, legal budgets and market power
to come after governments in the United States. The Trans-Pacific
Partnership could change all that, they say. The agreement would expand
that authority to investors in countries as wealthy as Japan and
Australia, with sophisticated companies deeply invested in the United
States..

“U.S.T.R.
will say the U.S. has never lost a case, but you’re going to see a lot
more challenges in the future,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of
Ohio.“There’s a huge pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for these
companies.”.

One 1999 case gives ammunition to both sides of the debate. Back then, California banned the chemical MTBE from the state’s gasoline,
citing the damage it was doing to its water supply. The Canadian
company Methanex Corporation sued for $970 million under Nafta, claiming
damages on future profits. The case stretched to 2005, when the
tribunal finally dismissed all claims..

To
supporters of the TPP, the Methanex case was proof that regulation for
the “public good” would win out. For opponents, it showed what could
happen when far larger companies from countries like Japan have access
to the same extrajudicial tribunals.....

Civil
courts in the United States are already open to action by foreign
investors and companies. Since 1993, while the federal government was
defending itself against those 17 cases brought throughextrajudicial
trade tribunals, it was sued 700,000 times in domestic courts..

In
all, according to Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, about 9,000
foreign-owned firms operating in the United States would be empowered to
bring cases against governments here.Those are as diverse as timber
and mining companies in Australia and investment conglomerates from
China whose subsidiaries in Trans-Pacific Partnership countries like
Vietnam and New Zealand also have ventures in the United States..

More than 18,000 companies based in the United States would gain new powers to go after the other 11 countries in the accord..

Under
the terms of the Pacific trade chapter, foreign investors could demand
cash compensation if member nations “expropriate or nationalize a
covered investment either directly or indirectly.” .

Opponents fear
“indirect expropriation” will be interpreted broadly, especially by
deep-pocketed multinational companies opposing regulatory or legal
changes that diminish the value of their investments..

Included
in the definition of “indirect expropriation” is government action that
“interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations,”
according to the leaked document..

The
cost can be high. In 2012, one such tribunal, under the auspices of the
World Bank’sInternational Centre for Settlement of Investment
Disputes, ordered Ecuador to pay Occidental Petroleum a record $2.3
billion for expropriating oil drilling rights..

Critics
say the text’s definition of an investment is so broad that it could
open enormous avenues of legal challenge. An investment includes “every
asset that an investor owns or controls, directly or indirectly, that
has the characteristic of an investment,” including “regulatory permits;
intellectual property rights; financial instruments such as stocks and
derivatives”; construction, management, production, concession,
revenue-sharing and other similar contracts; and “licenses,
authorizations, permits and similar rights conferred pursuant to
domestic law.”.

“This
is not about expropriation; it’s about regulatory changes,” said Lori
Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch and a fierce opponent of the
Pacific accord. “You now have specialized law firms being set up. You go
to them, tell them what country you’re in, what regulation you want to
go after, and they say ‘We’ll do it on contingency.’”

In
2013, Eli Lilly took advantage of a similar provision under Nafta to
sue Canada for $500 million, accusing Ottawa of violating its
obligations to foreign investors by allowing its courts to invalidate
patents for two of its drugs..

There
are other mitigating provisions, but many have catches. For instance,
one article states that “nothing in this chapter” should prevent a
member country from regulating investment activity for “environmental,
health or other regulatory objectives.” But that safety valve says such
regulation must be “consistent” with the other strictures of the
chapter, a provision even administration officials said rendered the
clause more political than legal..

One
of the chapter’s annexes states that regulatory actions meant “to
protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health,
safety and the environment” do not constitute indirect expropriation,
“except in rare circumstances.” That final exception could open such
regulations to legal second-guessing, critics say.".

"Correction: March 27, 2015An article on Thursday about provisions in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, as outlined in a classified document, that would allow
foreign corporations to sue the United States over actions that hurt
their business or investment expectations misstated when the document
was made available to members of Congress. Drafts were available for
review soon after being written; it is not the case that the latest
document was not made available until last week.".

"A version of this article appears in print on [Thurs.] March 26, 2015, on page B1 of the New York edition."...

“It’s
designed to carry forward the neoliberal project to maximize profit and
domination, and to set the working people in the world in competition
with one another so as to lower wages to increase insecurity,” Chomsky
said during an interview with HuffPost Live.

The
Obama administration has been negotiating the TPP pact with 11 other
Pacific nations for years.

While the deal has not been finalized and
much of it has been classified, American corporate interest groups,
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have already voiced strong
support for the TPP, describing it as a free trade deal that will
encourage economic growth. The Office of U.S. Trade Representative has
also defended the talks, saying the TPP will include robust regulatory
protections.

But labor unions and a host of traditionally liberal
interest groups, including environmentalists and public health
advocates, have sharply criticized the deal.

Chomsky argues that
much of the negotiations concern issues outside of what many consider
trade, and are focused instead on limiting the activities governments
can regulate, imposing new intellectual property standards abroad and
boosting corporate political power... “It’s called free trade, but that’s just a joke," Chomsky said.

"These
are extreme, highly protectionist measures designed to undermine freedom
of trade. In fact, much of what's leaked about the TPP indicates that
it's not about trade at all, it’s about investor rights.”

The
Obama administration is treating the precise terms of the deal as
classified information, blocking many Congressional staffers from
viewing the negotiation texts and limiting the information available to
members of Congress themselves. The deal's only publicly available
negotiation documents have come to light through document leaks. Recent
documents have been published by WikiLeaks and HuffPost.

According
to these leaked documents, the TPP would empower corporations to
directly challenge laws and regulations set by foreign nations before an
international tribunal. The tribunal would be given the authority to
not only overrule that nation's legal standards but also impose economic
penalties on it. Under World Trade Organization treaties, corporations
must convince a sovereign nation to bring trade cases before an
international court. Chomsky said the deal is an escalation of
neoliberal political goals previously advanced by the WTO and the North
American Free Trade Agreement.

Several members of Congress, including Obama's fellow Democrats,
have attacked the intense secrecy surrounding the talks. But others
want to give the TPP the "fast track" to passage; Sens. Max Baucus
(D-Mont.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced legislation on Thursday
that would prevent members of Congress from offering legislative
amendments to whatever final trade deal Obama reaches.

But the move to fast track the TPPhit headwinds in the House,
where no Democrat has agreed to co-sponsor the legislation. Speaker
John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the fast track bill cannot pass without
Democratic support. Chomsky quipped that of course the
administration and lawmakers would want to speed up a sweeping trade
deal that may be more in the interest of corporations than the public.
“It’s very understandable that it should be kept secret from the
public," Chomsky said, "why should people know what’s happening to
them?”"

3/28/15, "A new US-EU free trade agreement could make countries subservient to corporations," Business Insider, Don Quijones, Wolf St."After eight rounds of secret negotiations, Washington and Brussels
are still struggling to breathe life into the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP). According to current European Union
President, Latvia, the chances of the agreement being signed by the
year-end target are growing perilously slim.

However, resistance continues to mount on both sides of the Atlantic.
In the U.S. Wikileaks’ perfectly timed exposé of the investment chapter
of TTIP’s sister treaty, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), could
derail White House efforts to gain fast track approval to bulldoze the
treaty through Congress.

This time, even the mainstream media seems to
be paying an interest, with the New York Times in particular publishing a broadly critical report.

On the other side of the Atlantic, things seem to be going from bad
to worse — at least for the treaty’s supporters. Even the U.S.’s
ever-faithful ally and fellow Five-Eye member, the United Kingdom, is
beginning to express reservations about TTIP. Earlier this week an
all-party committee of Members of Parliament released a scathing report
on the trade agreement. The Business, Innovation and Skills
committee said the government needed “stronger evidence” to back up its
claim that TTIP would bring a boost of £100bn a year to the UK.